Re: [PATCH 18/41] OpenRISC: Don't reimplement force_sigsegv()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/11, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> Instead of open coding the sequence from force_sigsegv() just call
> it. This also fixes a race because sa_handler was being modified
> without holding ->sighand->siglock.
>
> --- a/arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -257,9 +257,7 @@ static void setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct k_sigaction *ka, siginfo_t *info,
>  	return;
>
>  give_sigsegv:
> -	if (sig == SIGSEGV)
> -		ka->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
> -	force_sig(SIGSEGV, current);
> +	force_sigsegv(sig, current);
>  }

Agreed, but...

I don't really understand the changelog, which race this patch fix?

Yes, we shouldn't change sa_handler lockless, this "breaks the rules"
but I do not see any immediate problem. And since force_sigsegv() drops
the lock after setting SIG_DFL we can "race" with the sub-thread anyway.


Hmm. Looking more, I think that this patch is not the cleanup, but the
bugfix. The current code is simply wrong, it plays with ka, and it points
to the _copy_ of sighand->action[], so this code is simply pointless.


Unless I missed something, could you fix the changelog and resend?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/